| Literature DB >> 35028450 |
Sourav Mohan Saha1, Sadia Afrin Pranty2, Md Jaber Rana3, Md Jahurul Islam3, Md Emran Hossain4.
Abstract
Universities worldwide have been conducting e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue education irrespective of faculties are familiar with e-education or not. This study assessed perception and preference for e-teaching amongst 438 faculty members. Results revealed that around half of teachers were conducting e-classes without any training, and they also had conducted examinations using online platforms. Teachers perceived e-teaching as effective during the pandemic, time-efficient, easy to share materials, unsuitable for monitoring or conducting practical classes and less effective for evaluation. More than three-fourths of the teachers preferred online teaching during the pandemic, and most preferred both physical and mixed teaching in the post-pandemic era. Their preferences were influenced by their age, teaching experience, academic discipline, current residency, training on online teaching, hours of online classes taught per week, internet connection used, types of classes and whether they had given online examinations. The major challenges in online teaching during COVID-19 were difficulty in practical work, difficulty in monitoring students and insufficient feedback. This study suggests online teaching during the pandemic and mixed teaching after the pandemic. Training faculty members on online teaching, designing e-platforms suitable for examinations and ensuring stable internet connections are also recommended for effective and smooth e-education.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; E-learning; Faculty preferences; Higher education; Online teaching; Pandemic
Year: 2021 PMID: 35028450 PMCID: PMC8741442 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08663
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Demographic characteristics of studied participants (N = 438).
| Characteristics | Level | % of respondents | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Young (18–35) | 59.23 | 34.64 | 7.37 |
| Middle (36–51) | 36.15 | |||
| Old (above 51) | 4.62 | |||
| Gender | Male | 63.85 | 0.48 | |
| Female | 36.15 | |||
| Education (years of schooling) | Honor's/BSc/BS | 3.08 | 19.18 | 1.98 |
| Master's/MSc/MS/M.Phil. | 66.92 | |||
| Ph.D | 30.00 | |||
| Academic discipline | Science | 62.31 | 0.78 | |
| Arts | 20.00 | |||
| Commerce | 17.69 | |||
| Teaching experience (years) | Below 02 years | 27.69 | 7.49 | 6.77 |
| 02–05 years | 18.46 | |||
| 06–10 years | 27.69 | |||
| Above 10 years | 26.15 | |||
| Current designation | Lecturer | 42.31 | 1.03 | |
| Assistant Professor | 28.46 | |||
| Associate Professor | 17.69 | |||
| Professor | 11.54 | |||
| Type of university | Public | 66.92 | 0.47 | |
| Private | 33.08 | |||
| Current place of residence | Semi-urban | 14.62 | 0.43 | |
| Urban | 85.38 |
Age is categorized according to the National Youth Policy of Bangladesh (2017).
Online teaching experiences of participants (N = 438).
| Variables | Categories | % of respondents | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching online | Yes | 99.23 | 0.09 | |
| No | 0.77 | |||
| Numbers of online courses taught | Below 05 | 52.31 | 10.35 | 11.73 |
| 06–10 | 16.92 | |||
| 11–15 | 8.46 | |||
| Above 15 | 22.31 | |||
| Hours online classes taught per week | Below 02 h | 17.69 | 7.30 | 5.81 |
| 03–05 h | 28.46 | |||
| 06–10 h | 30.77 | |||
| Above 10 h | 23.08 | |||
| Training on online teaching | Yes | 53.08 | 0.50 | |
| No | 46.92 | |||
| Gadget used for teaching online classes | Laptop/Desktop computer | 96.92 | 0.23 | |
| Smartphone | 2.31 | |||
| Tab | 0.77 | |||
| Internet connection used for online classes | Broadband | 93.85 | 0.24 | |
| Mobile/Cellular | 6.15 | |||
| Type of classes taught | Theoretical | 50.77 | 0.53 | |
| Practical | 1.54 | |||
| Both | 47.69 | |||
| Attendance level of students | Below 40% | 3.08 | 0.83 | |
| 41–60% | 20.77 | |||
| 60–80% | 40.00 | |||
| Above 80% | 36.15 | |||
| Conducted online examination | Yes | 76.26 | 0.43 | |
| No | 23.74 |
Note: SD indicates standard deviation.
Figure 1Platforms used for online teaching by studied participants (N = 438).
Figure 2Types of examination conducted by the teachers (N=334).
Perception of online teaching among university teachers (N = 438).
| Statement | N (%) | Mean | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Neutral (3) | Agree (4) | Strongly agree (5) | ||
| Online teaching is attractive | 13 (2.97) | 115 (26.26) | 135 (30.82) | 142 (32.42) | 33 (7.53) | 3.15 |
| Online teaching is effective during pandemic | 7 (1.60) | 17 (3.88) | 51 (11.64) | 206 (47.03) | 157 (35.84) | 4.12 |
| Better communication with students | 35 (7.99) | 168 (38.36) | 111 (25.34) | 104 (23.74) | 20 (4.57) | 2.79 |
| Better student-instructor interaction | 61 (13.93) | 168 (38.36) | 135 (30.82) | 67 (15.30) | 7 (1.60) | 2.52 |
| More time efficient | 17 (3.88) | 98 (22.37) | 67 (15.30) | 202 (46.12) | 54 (12.33) | 3.41 |
| Effective compared to conventional learning | 74 (16.89) | 165 (37.67) | 135 (30.82) | 51 (11.64) | 13 (2.97) | 2.46 |
| Easy to share the materials | 17 (3.88) | 40 (9.13) | 57 (13.01) | 158 (36.07) | 166 (37.90) | 3.95 |
| No difficulty faced delivering content | 37 (8.45) | 155 (35.39) | 67 (15.30) | 118 (26.94) | 61 (13.93) | 3.03 |
| No difficulty in monitoring students | 152 (34.70) | 192 (43.84) | 51 (11.64) | 40 (9.13) | 3 (0.68) | 1.97 |
| No difficulty in practical work | 175 (39.95) | 152 (34.70) | 67 (15.30) | 24 (5.48) | 20 (4.57) | 2.00 |
| Useful for evaluation | 67 (15.30) | 148 (33.79) | 138 (31.51) | 61 (13.93) | 24 (5.48) | 2.61 |
| Higher interest among students | 71 (16.21) | 192 (43.84) | 138 (31.51) | 37 (8.45) | 0 (0) | 2.32 |
| Overall mean score | 2.86 | |||||
| Cronbach's alpha | 0.8717 | |||||
Figure 3University teachers' preference for teaching methods.
Determinants of university teachers' preferences.
| Explanatory variables | During Pandemic | Post Pandemic (New Normal Period) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Online | Online | Mixed | ||||
| Marginal effect | Standard error | Marginal effect | Standard error | Marginal effect | Standard error | |
| Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) | 0.006 | 0.050 | 0.024 | 0.031 | 0.039 | 0.052 |
| Age (years) | 0.010 | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.003 | -0.012∗ | 0.006 |
| Education (years of schooling) | 0.021 | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.007 | -0.020 | 0.014 |
| Teaching Experience (years) | -0.013∗∗ | 0.006 | -0.004 | 0.003 | 0.023∗∗∗ | 0.007 |
| Academic discipline (Arts = base) | ||||||
| Science | -0.098∗ | 0.050 | -0.130∗∗∗ | 0.034 | 0.169∗∗∗ | 0.058 |
| Commerce | -0.053 | 0.059 | -0.0311 | 0.043 | 0.064 | 0.077 |
| University type (0 = public, 1 = private) | -0.045 | 0.049 | 0.008 | 0.027 | 0.047 | 0.071 |
| Current residence (0 = semi-urban, 1 = urban) | 0.276∗∗∗ | 0.053 | -0.022 | 0.041 | 0.042 | 0.074 |
| Numbers of online courses taught (number) | 0.001 | 0.001 | -0.001 | 0.001 | -.001 | 0.001 |
| Hours online classes taught per week (number) | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.009∗∗∗ | 0.002 | -0.002 | 0.006 |
| Training on online teaching (0 = no, 1 = yes) | 0.073∗ | 0.039 | -0.022 | 0.022 | -0.029 | 0.047 |
| Internet connection used (0 = broadband, 1 = mobile/cellular) | -0.074 | 0.081 | -0.831∗∗∗ | 0.118 | 0.470∗∗∗ | 0.105 |
| Type of Classes (Theoretical = base) | ||||||
| Practical | -0.437∗∗ | 0.211 | -0.123∗∗∗ | 0.018 | 0.339∗∗∗ | 0.112 |
| Both | -0.003 | 0.042 | -0.073∗∗∗ | 0.022 | 0.056 | 0.049 |
| Conducted Online Examination (0 = no, 1 = yes) | -0.077∗ | 0.041 | -0.089∗∗∗ | 0.023 | 0.135∗∗∗ | 0.047 |
| Observations (N) | 438 | 438 | ||||
| Wald χ2 | 77.88∗∗∗ | 2307.63∗∗∗ | ||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.1580 | 0.1399 | ||||
| Log pseudolikelihood | -197.09843 | -352.35904 | ||||
[∗, ∗∗, ∗∗∗ indicates significates level at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively].
Challenges faced in online teaching (N = 438).
| Challenges | Extent of challenge | Total PCI | Rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Low | Medium | High | |||
| Difficulty in practical work | 30 | 37 | 115 | 256 | 1035 | 1 |
| Difficulty in monitoring students | 24 | 54 | 121 | 239 | 1013 | 2 |
| Insufficient feedback | 10 | 81 | 232 | 115 | 890 | 3 |
| Less student-instructor interaction | 17 | 88 | 225 | 108 | 862 | 4 |
| Poor internet connectivity | 57 | 64 | 169 | 148 | 846 | 5 |
| Lack of student engagement | 17 | 101 | 216 | 104 | 845 | 6 |
| Students' low-interest | 24 | 77 | 260 | 77 | 828 | 7 |
| Less useful for evaluation | 37 | 91 | 195 | 115 | 826 | 8 |
| Less participation of students | 40 | 94 | 216 | 88 | 790 | 9 |
| Lack of proper guideline | 61 | 88 | 195 | 94 | 760 | 10 |
| Lack of ICT infrastructure | 74 | 84 | 169 | 111 | 755 | 11 |
| Lack of training | 61 | 138 | 158 | 81 | 697 | 12 |
| Limited technological experience | 104 | 125 | 152 | 57 | 600 | 13 |
| Difficulty in delivering content | 128 | 121 | 149 | 40 | 539 | 14 |
| Time consuming | 145 | 118 | 121 | 54 | 522 | 15 |